Texas Parks and Wildlife CommissionFinance Committee

Jan. 22, 2003

BE IT REMEMBERED, that heretofore on the 22nd day of
January, 2003, there came on to be heard matters under
the regulatory authority of the Parks and Wildlife
Commission of Texas, in the Commission Executive Board
Room of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Headquarters
Complex, beginning at 10:40 a.m. to wit:
APPEARANCES:
THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
Katharine Armstrong, Austin, Texas, Commission
Chair
Joseph B.C. Fitzsimons, San Antonio, Texas
Ernest Angelo, Jr., Midland, Texas, Committee
Chair
John Avila, Jr., Fort Worth, Texas
Alvin L. Henry, Houston, Texas
Philip Montgomery, Dallas, Texas
Donato D. Ramos, Laredo, Texas
Kelly W. Rising, M.D., Beaumont, Texas
Mark W. Watson, Jr., San Antonio, Texas
THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT:
Robert L. Cook, Executive Director, and other personnel
of the Parks and Wildlife Department
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: We will reconvene this
meeting. We will reconvene with the Finance Committee.
Commissioner Angelo?
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Thank you, Madame
Chairman.
The first item of business would be to approve
the minutes from the previous meeting. Are there any
corrections or additions? If not, a motion will be
approved.
COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: All in favor say, Aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The minutes are approved.
Mr. Cook, if you could give us the chairman's
charges.
MR. COOK: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner, just a few notes in this
particular area, in our Finance Committee, on chairman's
charges. I thought it would be appropriate to touch on
kind of where we are in our legislative process a little
bit. And Ms. Whittenton is going to expand on that some.
You will recall, we submitted our legislative
appropriations request back in August. It seems like a
long time ago now. But -- and things have certainly --
the picture of where we're headed in this session is
getting clearer and clearer every day. So we've got a
lot of work to do.
Just to give you an idea -- since the prefiling
of legislation started in November, there have been
slightly over 700 different pieces of legislation filed
so far. We are -- the Department and our legislative
liaisons -- within each division and legislative reps,
Joey Park and Harold Stone, are tracking 84 of those
bills right now. They, in some form or fashion, have
some mention of, or some impact on Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and/or our resources.
To give you an idea, there's three or four of
them that have some obvious impacts that I want to be
sure you know about. One bill has been filed relating to
the transfer of the Odessa meteor crater to Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department. Obviously, that potentially
could have a fiscal impact that we would all be
interested in.
Also, a bill relating to the protection of
public freshwater areas that, in a nutshell, closes state-
owned riverbeds to vehicular traffic. And, as you know,
we have worked with different folks, and different
agencies, and Dr. McKinney chaired a group to help
develop the recommendations and guidelines there. And we
have worked to do there.
We have a bill proposed, submitted, that
exempts folks over 70 years of age and older from the
requirement of having a hunting or fishing license.
Again, that would have a fiscal impact.
And we are developing, or already have
developed, impact statements on each of those bills.
Finally, just another example, we have a bill
that would exempt landowners from the requirement of
obtaining a hunting license to hunt feral hogs on the
landowners' property. So, there is a bill that,
sometimes, you might think -- and it does make some
sense. And, obviously, it has some proponents.
However, when a person is out with a rifle over
their shoulder, and walking through the woods, it becomes
difficult for one of our enforcement officers to
determine if they're deer hunting, or hog hunting, or
quail hunting, or whatever it is they're doing. And
currently, if you're out in the woods with a rifle, and
if you're out there hunting, then you have to have a
hunting license.
As of last week, the Senate committees were
named. And I think we provided that information to you.
If you haven't gotten it, we'll be glad to provide you
that. We anticipate that the House committees will
probably be named, at least, prior to the first of this
next month, probably the end of this month or the first
of next month, somewhere thereabouts.
We are -- as Suzy will, again, give you a
little more detail on -- we are preparing to assist our
legislators in every way possible to get through what we
all believe is going to be a difficult session. And
we're going to make this thing work. We've got a good
outfit. And we can find ways to help them. And we're
going to.
So, with that, if you have any questions, I'll
be glad to take a shot at them now. Or we can address
that when Suzy completes hers.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Are there any questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: There being none, Suzy,
we'll move on to your item number two, which is the
financial review and update.
MS. WHITTENTON: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Suzy
Whittenton, Chief Financial Officer.
Last week, we sent out some financial reports
to you, in a notebook to give you a little more
comprehensive detailed information.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Let me interrupt for just
a second and tell you how much I appreciate that. I
think that was a super collection of information. And I
congratulate you and your staff on putting that together.
And I hope the Commissioners take full advantage of it.
I went through that. I won't say that I
studied it to the extent I should have. But I think
having that information is extremely valuable. And I
would that there might be sometime that the commission
could be, in a more detailed manner, briefed on this type
of information, at least once a year. I think it would
be very beneficial to everybody to be able to go through
it and ask questions. But it's great information.
MS. WHITTENTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I didn't mean to
interrupt you.
MS. WHITTENTON: Not at all.
MR. COOK: Anytime.
MS. WHITTENTON: We also plan to add to that
some other information, like we'll try to include
information on performance measures, and FTEs, and budget-
wise strategy. And, as we go along, add to it -- and
it's kind of a work in progress at this point.
Anyway, today's presentation will cover
summarized revenue and expenditure information, as well
as an update on where we're going with this improvement
plan, and, Mr. Cook mentioned, the legislative
appropriations request status.
Let's start with park revenue. As of the end
of November, park revenue was down 12 percent, or about
$659,000. Part of that is due to the fact that this year
Thanksgiving weekend fell into the December reporting
period, because of the weekend that it was in, the way
they cut off the weeks to report revenue. Other reasons
are the stormy weather. And there's some parks that just
have not done as well, in certain parts of the state, as
they had in previous years.
However, from what we're seeing, it looks like
December was a good month. I just don't have good
December numbers just yet. So we think that we'll,
possibly, be back up to closer to the levels we were at
last year by the end of January. We'll just keep
watching. It's early in the season for park revenues, as
we collect most of that in the last two quarters of the
fiscal year.
In boat revenue, we're also down, as of the end
of December. It looks like it's due to registrations
being off. Titling revenue is actually up over last
year. And sales tax started to rebound in December. So
it's a little odd to see registrations this far off. We
had a similar situation -- remember last year, we started
off the year with boat registrations looking real
strange, or revenue looking a little different.
But we collect the bulk of our boat
registrations between March and June. Actually, February
is a pretty big month as well. So we'll be watching it
real closely. We're not worried about it right now.
We're only off less than half a million dollars. And I
think we'll probably catch up.
In license sales, this is the number of
licenses, stamps, and permits that we've sold since the
license year began in mid-August. And it's down just
slightly over last year, but that doesn't necessarily
translate into a revenue correlation. It just means that
the total number that we sold is down.
But super combo sales are up again. They've
been up every since we introduced that license type. So
what tends to happen is people who used to buy a license
and two stamps will move to buying a super combo. So you
a reduction in the total number of the sale. But, again,
it doesn't necessarily mean that revenue is off. In
fact, revenue is not down.
Hunting license sales -- we've sold over a
million hunting licenses so far this year. It's up just
a little over 1 percent, as compared to this time a year
ago. It's interesting to note that nonresident hunting
licenses are at 6.5 percent roughly. And that ends up
having a significant fiscal impact because those licenses
are more expensive.
And in fishing licenses, we've sold just over a
million fishing licenses so far this year, which is down
just slightly, about 2 percent, over last year. Again,
nonresident sales are up slightly while sales to
residents are down 5 percent. Also, saltwater stamp
sales are down 4.4. percent.
We'll probably still sell another 300,000
fishing licenses the remainder of this year. We've sold
almost all of the hunting licenses we'll sell. But
there's still significant numbers of fishing licenses
that we think we'll sell.
And in looking at total revenue, as I
mentioned, revenue is up just a little bit, less than 1
percent, over last year, as of the end of December, which
was about $183,000 higher. Early January reports show
that revenues are continuing to outpace last year's. And
as of last week, we were up $380,000 approximately. So
license revenue seems to be doing fine. And we've
collected 64 percent of what we think we'll collect all
year.
What we usually focus on in these meetings are
the top three revenue types. But there are so many other
revenue sources. And they're in your notebooks, if you
want to study them. We track all of our revenue against
the annual estimates, the cash we expect to receive in a
fiscal year. The Comptroller's office does their revenue
estimate as well. And that's what we base our budgets
on.
And so, I just picked out five of the primary
funds to show you what it looks like. In Fund 9, the
Game Fish and Water Safety account, we've already
collected almost half of what we'll collect all year.
And that's, of course, because license sales is the
primary revenue source in there. And we collect most of
those in the fall.
State Park funds -- we collected 30 percent.
We're about a third of the way through the year. And,
again, the two biggest quarters for the state park
revenue are the last two, the third and fourth quarters.
So that looks like, cash-wise, we're doing all right.
The artificial refund, the last one there,
looks a little odd. The estimate was based on prior year
donations that are received for artificial reaps and
interest income. And we've already collected 170 percent
of what we thought we'd collect all year.
So, there are some unusual things that happen
throughout the year. And I included information on all
of our funds in your notebook.
And on the expenditure side, this is just a
summary by category, agencywide. We're a third of the
way through the fiscal year. We've spent 31.5 percent of
our budget. And you can see that some of the categories
track pretty constantly throughout the year.
Like, the personal services is salaries and
wages. And fringe benefits, we're spending at about the
pace we expected. You can see we've already spent 41
percent of our capital equipment budget. And I've only
encumbered 14 percent of our grant budget.
And that's just the way we spend funds
throughout the year. Each division is managing their own
budget and monitoring that they're not going to go over
budget when make their expenditures.
We're expecting to get some correspondence from
the Governor's office sometime this week, possibly today,
telling us -- directing us to save some funds for this
year, to make up for the $2 billion shortfall that
they've got. We don't know yet what format that's going
to be in, whether it's going to be just a hiring freeze,
or a freeze on certain types of expenditures, or whether
it's going to be a targeted amount that they want us to
save. And so we'll have to look at adjusting what's left
of the year unspent.
In the business improvement plan, I sent you a
copy in your notebook of the detail of those items.
There were 94 items in the plan. That's been in effect
since March. We've now completed 46 of those items --
which is approximately 50 percent of all the items are
100 percent completed.
A lot of them are pretty far along. There are
another 14 items scheduled to be finished by the end of
next month. That will put us at about two-thirds of the
way finished with all of the 94 items.
The plan actually goes out until November '04,
before we'll have everything finished. Because there are
some items in there that require programming, and some
systems rewrites of some of our revenue systems, and some
feasibility studies that we're going to be doing that
take a little longer.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Suzy, my comment that I
saw Mr. Bomer [phonetic] during the past week and had a
chance to visit with him. And I don't think he'd mind me
saying that his comment was that -- I won't get this
exactly right, but the essence of it was that Parks and
Wildlife response to his recommendations was the best of
any of the similar type of audit process that he had gone
through with any other agency.
MS. WHITTENTON: That's great.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: He was very complimentary
for what you all have done.
MS. WHITTENTON: Thank you.
And, Bob mentioned the legislative
appropriations request. We sent that out last September.
And have, since then, spent a lot of time with the staff
of Legislative Budget Board and the Governor's office,
answering a lot of questions. They've been combing
through our request and our prior spending.
And last week, the Governor's office
recommended a zero base budget. They're expecting each
agency to start with zero funding and then justify every
dollar that would be budgeted.
They've also recommended a slightly more
detailed funding pattern that would better identify the
primary functions that are funded within each strategy.
And then, they are associating indirect cost to each
strategy. So it will be, probably, a little easier to
read in the format that they've proposed.
They have not addressed any of the rider
requests in their budget.
In prior sessions, what normally happens is the
Legislative Budget Board's request is taken as a base and
it goes from there. This go round, we're not sure if
they're going to use a zero base strategy or use the LBB
recommendation. That came out a couple of weeks ago.
And it is a current services level budget, which, of
course, there doesn't seem to be revenue to support. But
it's important to look at what's in the recommendation I
think.
The recommendation excluded any Proposition 8
funding. And that wasn't just for Parks and Wildlife,
but all the agencies that were covered by those
Proposition 8 funds. They just left them out. We don't
really know why. If they were thinking, postponing that
as something that could be pushed out a couple of years.
But none of the agencies had any Proposition 8 funding.
It also eliminated our entrepreneurial rider,
which would be a concern to us. We feel like that's real
important. So that if we earned revenue over and above
the revenue estimate, then we'd be able to spend it if
needed.
It also -- we had asked that land acquisitions,
with federal funds or grant funds, be exempted from the
restrictions that their capital budget rider places on
those kinds of purchases. And instead, they came back
with a rider that would increase the restrictions on land
acquisitions. And, in fact, they cut out the $1.5
million of federal funds, land and water funds, that we
had asked for, for land acquisitions. And they had
recommended a decrease there.
They also added the amounts for the floating
cabins that we had asked for. The floating cabin money
that -- if you will recall, we had earned revenue from
floating cabin permits and then it was required to be
deposited into the general revenue fund. And we weren't
able to access it. And so it was lapsed at the end of
last year. And we asked that that be given back to the
agency. And LBB did recommend that we get that back.
It's not a significant dollar amount. It's, I think, a
couple hundred thousand.
And also, a week or two ago, the Comptroller's
revenue estimate was released. It is within 1 percent of
the revenue estimate that we had submitted back in
September. And so we were pleased that they agreed that
our numbers were in line.
So at this point, we're waiting on legislative
leadership to provide some guidance on what the budget
approach will be. And we'll be working real closely with
their offices, and, of course, with the Senate Finance
and House Appropriations committee to proceed from here.
And that completes my presentation. I'm happy
to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: Mr. Chairman.
Suzy, it's my understanding that the
entrepreneurial rider -- this is something we've had to
deal with just about every legislative session since it's
been in existence. So the fact that it's been eliminated
at this point is not an unusual situation.
MS. WHITTENTON: That's correct. Thank you.
I guess we had that rider for some time in the
'90s and then lost it a couple of sessions ago. And last
session, that was one of our exceptional items requests,
was to get that rider back. And we did get it back. We
haven't had to use it yet because our revenue has not
exceeded estimates yet. But we sure like to have it in
place.
COMMISSIONER HENRY: Mr. Chairman.
Would you expand a bit on your comments -- I
may have missed something -- regarding property funding
and land acquisition?
MS. WHITTENTON: Okay. On the Proposition 8
was the bond, you know, that passed, it was 100 --
COMMISSIONER HENRY: 101.
MS. WHITTENTON: -- $101 million for eight
agencies or so.
MR. BORUFF: It was 850 --
MS. WHITTENTON: I'm sorry.
MR. BORUFF: -- for a total optional --
MS. WHITTENTON: Thank you. We had been
scheduled to get about $30 million, $34 million, over the
next biennium, according to the schedule that was
originally prepared. They didn't recommend that we get
that, those bond funds, next biennium, nor did they
recommend them for any of the other agencies.
However, we have collected the first $36
million that was included in this biennium. They've
given us all of -- the Texas Public Finance Authority
went ahead and funded all of those bonds. So we have
them in our bank account right now. So that will
actually get us through if we have to go without the next
biennium. I think we'd be all right there.
COMMISSIONER HENRY: I understand.
MS. WHITTENTON: Okay. Good.
MR. BORUFF: The legislature issued $850
million -- oh, I'm Scott Boruff, Deputy Executive
Director in Operations. The legislature issued $850
million in bonds for ten or eleven agencies, of which we
would receive 101 million. That 101 million was to be
issued roughly in equal installments, if you will, over
the next three bienniums, of 35 million, more or less.
We took an aggressive stance and had already
had the first 34 million, or 35 million, issued. It is
in the bank. We feel like we're pretty safe there.
The current legislature, though, has to
recertify the next installment, if you will, of 35
million or so. And that is the one that we're worried
about more, it being at risk. If they don't recertify,
we may not be able to get that 35 million the next
biennium.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Suppose the legislature's
concern there, or reason for that, might be the interest
payments on it. Would that be right?
MR. BORUFF: Yes, sir. the debt services --
MR. COOK: That's a big debt service.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Because the capital part
of it is already covered. The debt service would be the
problem.
MR. BORUFF: The debt service is about $80
million on that total issue. So it's a big piece of it.
MR. COOK: Let me point out, in particular, you
know, like the Battleship was to be in this next --
there's several of those big projects that are
specifically identified in the original bill, that, you
know, this is really going to impact those.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So we might be looking at
a two-year delay?
MR. COOK: Yes, sir.
MS. WHITTENTON: That's a possibility.
COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Are other agencies that
are supposed to get profit monies in a similar situation?
Or is it only us?
MS. WHITTENTON: It's all of us.
MR. BORUFF: It's all agencies. In fact, we're
one of three that I'm aware of that were ahead of the
curve, and went ahead and had the bonds issued early, in
anticipation of this. The others would be at risk even
for this first, since it's not been issued yet. And I
don't know. I mean, obviously, that's not my call.
But -- so, yes, all agencies were treated equally.
MS. WHITTENTON: And as to your question on
land acquisitions, we had asked that if we got any
additional funds, federal funds, or grant funds, or gifts
like we had with the Callison [phonetic] purchase, could
that be exempted from any restrictions that are in the
normal, in the regular appropriations bill? And,
instead, they came back with a recommendation to increase
the restrictions.
In fact, the rider that they recommended says
that before we could purchase any land over and above
what's included in the base bill, we would have to go
through a prior approval process, with the Legislative
Budget Board and the Governor's office, before we could
make any of those additional purchases. That's what
their recommended rider says.
And, you know, we don't know whether that will
be proposed in a bill or not.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Even though that would
actually be of no cost to the state's budget? Is that
correct or not?
MS. WHITTENTON: That's correct. There would
be no cost, zero cost, yes. I think we could -- we would
have an opportunity to be heard on that.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: They probably don't want
us taking on any new land purchases that are going to add
to our operating costs.
MS. WHITTENTON: I suspect that was the
thinking.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Right. Any other
questions from the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER AVILA: How long is that directive
in effect for?
MS. WHITTENTON: Well, if it were to pass, it
would be part of the next two-year budget. So it would
be for a two-year period.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Well, what happens if we
sell a piece of property and get some money in order to
acquire land?
MS. WHITTENTON: We currently have a rider that
says that if we sell land, that the proceeds from the
land sale can be reappropriated for a similar purchase.
The LBB has recommended that that rider be deleted. So I
think the message we're getting there is, we're concerned
about land acquisitions.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: That could have a bearing
on your concern.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: My concern is --
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: We'll discuss that, I'm
sure, later.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENRY: I think we need to let the
record show that it also has a significant bearing on the
report concerning the purchase of those five major parks
that we talked about, within the ten-year period.
COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: You mean the Land
Conservation Act?
COMMISSIONER HENRY: Yes, the Land Conservation
Act. That just brings it to a halt.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Those are probably a
little --
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: I think, for the next
biennium, somewhere in the future.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: But the Land and
Water Conservation didn't address funding. And it is
conceivable there have been acquisitions by the
Department before, where the funds came not from the
state and the operations were endowed separately from the
state. And that's been one of the possibilities in that
mix, from the beginning, that I really think was,
probably, always the case -- is that we're going to have
to get the money separately to do that.
So, I'm not -- I don't think you should stop
this work and all.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: With the restrictions
prohibitive from the next biennium then? This is what
you're saying?
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: No, I don't think --
MS. WHITTENTON: I don't think it would
prohibit it. We just wouldn't be --
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: -- there would be
state money for it.
MS. WHITTENTON: We have to get prior approval
to make any purchases. And then if we sold any land, we
wouldn't necessarily get to use that money to make
additional land purchase.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The prior approval
process would not absolutely exclude the possibility that
it might happen. You might be able to get that approval.
MS. WHITTENTON: It just makes it slow it down
a little, yes.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: And depending on what you
get there.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: You have to look at
the funding for operations and for acquisition is the
short answer. I've always thought that was the case.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other questions,
comment?
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: Along those lines, I do
have one comment -- that we all understand that these are
very tough budget times for everybody; and that when the
Land and Water Conservation Plan was formulated, we
understood that there would be these sort of things.
This is a ten to fifteen-year plan. And we are going to
take realities as they come.
These tough budget times have also brought some
focus on the priorities of our holdings. And we have
gotten some indications from the Comptroller's office and
others that we need to be sure that our assets that we
have right now are fully utilized. And that's sort of
the other side of the coin here. And I just wanted to
make mention of that.
MR. COOK: I'd also like to make sure that, on
this approval business, we have a decision -- I don't
recall exactly -- we've made two or three requests under
the present requirement to get clearance. And we've done
so, not necessarily because it was required, because we
wanted those -- we've been working with those folks
closely, and we wanted them to know what we've been
doing. We wanted them to understand.
And the requirement that was put on us in this
last couple of sessions, you know, we have -- for
instance, and I'll use a classic example, was at
Government Canyon -- you know, where you've got an
adjoining piece of property.
You've got half of the funding being provided
by the City of San Antonio, the rest of the funding being
provided, basically, through a grant program -- not one
single dollar of the acquisition -- and in effect, what
that one did -- and we've got another we're looking at
right now down there that actually kind of squares up our
property, where we have less fence, less property line to
maintain. If I'm -- as a landowner, everybody looks for
those kinds of things.
But what the group is saying is, regardless of
the funding source, they want to be involved. And that's
the basic pattern of questioning. Is this going to cost
you additional operating dollars? Is it going to help
you? Are you going to have to add utilities? Are you
going to have to add staff -- those kind of things. And
we've been able to satisfy them every time.
But it does take some time and effort. But
still, in these kind of budget times, it's probably a
good, responsible approach. And we can live with it.
COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: You made a good point
there. You don't want to squelch the opportunities, the
sort of creative solutions you have at Government Canyon,
where not just the City of San Antonio, but SOG
[phonetic] and EAA --
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: Private philanthropists.
COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: It's unbelievable.
MR. COOK: And as you know, we have -- our
acquisitions in recent years, basically have been limited
to access, you know, issues and/or end holdings, or maybe
corners that square us up. Those are the kind of things
we have been looking for.
Now, our land and water plan will certainly be
impacted -- could potentially be impacted by this. But
we're going to continue to work on it.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any more questions?
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Yes. Let's say we did
sell property, wherever it may be, and we just got some
money. And the intent of that is to purchase land
elsewhere, in accordance with our plan, our Land and
Water Conservation plan, are we in danger of being told
to use that money differently?
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: I'd like to address that.
Because I was intimately involved the Land and Water
Conservation Plan, as were several of the commissioners
here.
And I see this argument developing, or
discussion developing, that I think is not an accurate
reflection. Simply because we are looking at
divestiture, which might or might not raise funds, those
funds are not earmarked for acquisition. And I think
that's important to understand. It's just an option, not
an absolute, you know, requirement.
Don't think that just because we are finding
ways to work with localities to divest ourselves of a
park that, perhaps, is no longer fit to criteria that
we've laid out for ourselves as to what a state park
should be -- that does not necessarily mean that if funds
are raised in that process, that they will immediately go
to another acquisition.
COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Unless it's
appropriate, meets the criteria.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: It would be wrong to
assume that that's a fait accompli.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: I think it's good to get
that out.
COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Point is well taken.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other questions,
comments?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Thank you, Suzy. That
will complete that item and we'll move to item number
three, which, again, will be presented by Suzy Whittenton
and John Herron. This is the wildlife grant budget
adjustment. I believe it requires some explanation.
MS. WHITTENTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This item's really a housekeeping item. It's
an item to ensure that the wildlife budget for the
Conservation Action grants complies with Section
11.043(c) that governs the use of the conservation and
capital account, where license plate revenue is
deposited.
Last August, when we approved the operating
budget, funds for this program were included in the
budget. However, I mistakenly classified them as
operating funds. They should have been grant funds.
What the statute says is that license plate
proceeds may only be spent for acquisition, development,
maintenance, or operation of parks, fisheries, or
wildlife projects that have been individually approved by
the Commission. So in order to just ensure that we were
in compliance, we felt we should bring this item into an
open meeting.
The funds set aside for this grant program
are -- in the budget, there's $700,000 set aside. The
funds come from a combination of state wildlife grant
funds, federal funds, and these revenues from license
plate proceeds. Those license plate proceeds are the
ones that can only be used for certain projects -- so the
wildlife projects that have been individually approved by
the Commission.
So this program is to benefit rare species and
species in need of conservation. They're grants that
require a one-to-one match from the grantee. And so
we're just recommending that we specifically approve this
as a separate budget item. It won't change anything in
the budget. It just clarifies that the Commission was
aware that these funds were set aside for this purpose.
And there are -- if you have any questions
about the specific program, I'll have to call on wildlife
staff to help me.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Essentially, this is a
housekeeping item, to correct something that was not
exactly correct the first time?
MS. WHITTENTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Anyone have any questions
on that?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: If there's no further
questions or discussion, without objection, we'll place
this item on the agenda for the Thursday commission
meeting for public comment and action. Hearing none, it
will be done.
Item number four -- thank you, Suzy -- this is
several grant situations, local park grants first, I
guess. Tim Hogsett will present this.
Tim?
MR. HOGSETT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
members of the Commission, I'm Tim Hogsett, Director of
the Recreation Grants Program and the State Parks
Division. I'm coming before you today to acquaint you
with the recommendations we will be making tomorrow for
funding from three grant programs, two of which are from
the Texas Recreation Parks accounts sporting goods tax
and the other is a pass-through federal program.
Our largest program is our outdoor recreation
grant program. The $500,000 maximum grants are 50
percent grants to local governments for acquisition and
development of public parks and recreation facilities.
We bring these to you twice a year.
As of our July 31, 2002, deadline, we had
received 43 applications requesting a bit over $18
million in matching funds. We've scored and rank ordered
the applications using the scoring system which you've
previously adopted. We've conducted site visits. And
tomorrow, we will be recommending funding for the top 14
applications, for $16,550,817 in matching funds.
And that's all I have on that.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any discussion or
questions on that particular item?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: If not, Tim, the next one
is Indoor Recreation Grants.
MR. HOGSETT: Indoor Recreation Grants, also
from the Texas Recreation Parks accounts sporting goods
tax, sales tax revenue, we receive applications once a
year for this program, the July 31 deadline.
And we're bringing forward to you
recommendations for the projects that we received prior
to our July 31 deadline. We saw a pretty dramatic
increase in the number of applications for this program
this time, 25. It's typically been ten or twelve. So I
think the news is getting out there. The interest is
mounting for the program.
We received 25 applications, requesting $15.8
million in matching funds. And, again, we prioritized
those by the scoring system that you've adopted. And
tomorrow, we'll be recommending funding for the top six
applications for $3,411,868 in matching funds.
And I'll be glad to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any questions on this
item?
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Tim, when is the next go
around on this particular fund?
MR. HOGSETT: It will be -- we've sent
permanent deadlines now for the indoor program of July
31. And we'll come back every January with those grants.
The outdoor program, we take applications twice
a year, July 31 and January 31 deadlines, and bring those
applications to you in August and January.
For our other programs in the Texas Recreation
and Parks account, we take applications for our small
communities program that we just started January 31 for
an August review, and the same for the regional park
grants.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Mr. Cook, do you have
something?
MR. COOK: Mr. Chairman, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Go ahead. Are you
finished?
MR. HOGSETT: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Are you sure?
MR. HOGSETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Mr. Cook?
MR. COOK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, one
thing that I wanted to remind you of, and make you aware
of, not only in addition to the number of applicants that
we have seen increase in both of these programs, we've
added some requirements in these programs, at Commission
direction, to emphasize conservation messages and, you
know, deliver conservation on the ground in some of these
sites.
Tim, any comments, any thoughts, on that? Is
that -- these guys came in and briefed me. And it sounds
to me like we really have got people's ears, that they
really are getting into those kinds of proposals.
Because they get extra points for that kind of thing --
Tim, thoughts, comments?
MR. HOGSETT: Yes, that's, I believe, to be
absolutely the case. For example, in the outdoor
program, one of the things that we're seeing is that it
virtually is required that you be acquiring new park land
to be able to be competitive. You'll notice in the
description, in both the indoor and the outdoor programs,
of the top three or four projects that all of them have
some fairly significant conservation element in them,
whether it be preservation of a wetland, or a nature
interpretation facility, or whatever.
I agree with Mr. Cook. I believe that it is.
And we don't hear, really, very many complaints about it.
I think that the local governments are pleased with the
direction that the program's taking.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: So if they are naming it
recreation center, and indoor/outdoor recreation centers,
these cities are clear when they come in with an
natatorium, they're not going to score high?
MR. HOGSETT: If that's all their asking for,
probably not, no. In fact, we had -- the lowest scoring
project of the bunch was a little community up in the
Panhandle. All they want to do is put a roof over an
existing swimming pool.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: That would be a stretch,
wouldn't it?
MR. HOGSETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: All right. Does that --
you've got another one then?
MR. HOGSETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The final one is the
Target Range Grants.
MR. HOGSETT: Target Range Grants are 75
percent federal pass-through grants authorized by the
Wildlife Restoration Act. They are just what you would
expect them to be, grants for infrastructure related to
hunter education facilities, target ranges, that sort of
thing.
We received two applications, requesting a
total of $90,000, from two different gun clubs. And
we'll be recommending approval for both of those to you
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any questions on that
item?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: If not, and there are no
further questions or discussion, without objection, we'll
place this item on the Thursday commission meeting agenda
for public comment and action. Hearing none, that's what
will happen. We don't need to make a motion.
MR. HOGSETT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The next item on our
agenda is the Kerrville-Schreiner State Park transfer.
Mr. Dabney?
MR. DABNEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
morning. I'm Walt Dabney, State Park Director. I'm here
to talk to you today of the possible transfer of
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park in Kerrville, Texas.
We received this park, this 517-acre park, in
1934 from the city, soon after it was built by the CCC.
And we paid them $10 for it. And it's a great park.
It's virtually surrounded by the City of Kerrville now,
right on the river. It has a lot of nice facilities --
campsites, restaurants, shelters, and so forth.
Under House Bill 2108, wherein previously
approved a transfer of five other sites, the City of
Kerrville has come to us with a request that we consider
transferring this park back to them for operation. We
have $2 million per year authorized by the legislature,
out of the grants program, not out of park operating
dollars, to effect these kinds of transfers.
The grant has to be predicated on a proposal
from the city, or county, subdivision of the state, to
take this ownership back. Kerrville has put a list of
things together, and has requested a grant of $1.8
million to transfer the park back, including the
facilities and equipment that is there, to operate it.
They also want to contract with us -- which we've done
with Lower Colorado River Authority -- to use our central
reservations office to continue to make reservations for
their campground, which we would be prepared to do.
The staff, which is always an issue in these
things, and has been -- and we have not, per your
directions -- and certainly that is our feeling, too --
no employees have lost their jobs because of this. Some
of the employees at Kerrville would choose to become city
employees and others that are there would be moved to
other state park sites.
The transfer terms, as has been the case in the
other five, guarantees that the park has to continue to
be used as it is now, as a park. They must continue to
take care of historical, cultural, and natural resources
at the site. It would no longer be called a state park.
And there is a transfer clause back, that if
they decided subdivide it and sell if off, or whatever,
it would come back to us instead. You can't do that with
any of these sites. That's not the spirit of the law.
The transfer grant would be in '03, '04 if you
approve this. And it would let us provide some
transition money so that they can get staffed up and
start operating the site. It also would let us fix the
water and sewer systems, put a new restroom in. And the
idea behind all these things is we want to give them a
first-class park. They've got a good recreation and
parks department. We give them a first-class park to
operate. And the people of Texas benefit all the way
around on that.
Our recommendation will be, tomorrow, will be
that you give us the authorization to negotiate a final
agreement up to that $1.8 million figure. And if we
reach that agreement, we transfer the site.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Walt, will you briefly
give your opinion as to how this does benefit Parks and
Wildlife and the state?
MR. DABNEY: I think, first of all, there is
certainly no net loss to the people of Texas, of park
land, which is consistent with the philosophy behind this
law. And the City of Kerrville, compared to 1934, is a
real city now, and not a small town. They have a very
good parks department. This park is quickly becoming a
city park, as it is surrounded by development in the City
of Kerrville.
We certainly -- it's almost a wash as far as
revenue versus operating cost, except for the capital
piece of that, which over time, certainly, is an issue.
We need those people. We haven't filled positions there
for a while, knowing that the city was serious about
this. The ones that are remaining, we need in other
parks right now. And we would use them.
So I look at this as a very positive overall
situation financially. And, otherwise, I think all of
you know, we're down 90 positions anyway and have
difficulty in dealing with some of these things.
So this is consistent. I don't really have any
others on the pond right now. I think if you approve
this one, this will be six that were pretty logical
transfers.
And I don't see many more coming forward that
are likely to transfer -- with the exception, as
Commissioner Ramos knows, that we might be able to
transfer the swimming pool at Lake Casa Blanca to the
City of Laredo, if we were to fix it up and give it to
them so that they could operate it as a city pool. I'd
love to do that, and a couple of more, if we had the
chance. But I don't really see those opportunities
coming.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Commissioner Avila?
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Walt, are we saying that
we're going to transfer this to the City of Kerrville and
give them 1.8 million?
MR. DABNEY: Yes, sir. We don't give them --
it's a reimbursable thing. They have to go in and do
these renovations, and so forth. And then they bill us
back. They give us the receipts. There are some that
it's transitional money, which is operational. But most
of this is actually facility development, rehabilitation,
and that kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: In that particular park,
where is the -- what's the time period for the 1.8
million --
MR. DABNEY: Two years.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: -- in our costs in
operating that park? Now, we don't spend 1.8 million on
that park, a year.
MR. DABNEY: We spend, right now -- not
counting capital -- 335,000, 336,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: If you include capital,
what would you spend?
MR. DABNEY: Most of these things that we have
to do -- and here, we're going to have to do them --
(Various voices in the background.)
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: We're going to have to do
them anyway.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: This funding -- the
funding that you're going to be able to utilize to do
this is funding we couldn't otherwise use to fix it --
MR. DABNEY: We could not.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: -- unless we did it in
that manner. Correct?
MR. DABNEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: All I want to know is if
there's a transfer.
MR. DABNEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Because it comes from a
grant?
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Right. That's correct.
MR. DABNEY: And so it doesn't hurt our capital
projects, or our bond projects, or our operating dollars
at all to fix this? And for us to try to do it otherwise
and keep it, we would have to pull this out of Prop 8
money to fix it up.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Okay.
MR. DABNEY: So that's another good deal, I
think.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: And that makes it a good
deal for us, obviously.
MR. DABNEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Let me ask you this. What
is the current site improvements there, versus -- or was
that it? Is there anything new?
MR. DABNEY: There --
COMMISSIONER AVILA: In that 1.8 million, are
we going to do something new?
MR. DABNEY: This is what is there now, sir.
It's primarily --
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: I have been there. And
it's a fully developed park, intensely developed park.
MR. DABNEY: And what we would do new -- new
things -- there's going to be one new restroom. And
we're going to upgrade the existing screen shelters to
cabinettes. And these are not fancy. These are just --
what that allows you to do is, for example, put an air
conditioner or heater in there, so that you can use them
all year, as opposed to just in the better periods of
time.
And that will help them be successful from a
revenue standpoint. The last thing we want to do is try
to cut this short, make it difficult for them to be
successful, and get something like this back.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Okay. I got it.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: You say you don't see any
others on the horizon. Are we actively looking, yet, to
see if there might be some? This one came in on its own.
Or did you all get this?
MR. DABNEY: No, sir. I think we've done that.
As you recall, when House Bill 2108 was passed, this body
instructed us to send a letter to every subdivision in
the state that would be affected by it, that has a park
nearby. And this is in response to that notice that 2108
is there, and if you had an interest.
We've met and talked with a lot of different
people that walked away and said, No, we appreciate what
you're doing there. And we're glad that you're going to
keep doing it. These are the only ones that I see -- I
don't see any more coming as a result of that.
And our recommendation -- I think the boss's
recommendation is employee morale, and otherwise, we call
it good and stop this business. Except that as the law
stays in place, if someone does in fact come in, in the
future, and says, Hey, things have changed. We want to
do it. We certainly will talk to them.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Well, the only thing I'm
worried about, is this funding to continue? Or what is
the process?
MR. DABNEY: Until the legislature changes it,
it stays in place. And, again, it's just an
authorization to use part of that grant money for this
purpose. If this wasn't here, we might could be using
that grant money to give additional grants.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Are we not
proactively working on this from the Land and Water Plan?
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: Yes. I mean, we
prioritized some of our holdings in terms of --
MR. COOK: We have, in effect, done that.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Yes?
MR. COOK: And we'll continue to do so.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Before the plan had
gone out?
MR. COOK: Well, even before the plan.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: The plan and what you are
talking about, the directive, were not necessarily
directly connected. But they are consistent with each
other.
MR. DABNEY: Yes, ma'am, they are. And that
list that's in the plan -- whether there's a list or not,
we still have the authority to divest on any given site.
The purpose of the list in the plan was, if we had an
opportunity, those would be our highest priority to
transfer.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: With regard to that
list, I think we already explored the possibility of
entities other than those local governments taking those
over, and maintaining use and preservation requirements.
Let's don't stop if the cities don't want them. It
wasn't the intention, I think, in writing that plan, that
we limit ourselves to local governments.
MR. COOK: We have not limited ourselves to
local governments.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: We have not.
MR. DABNEY: The only problem is money.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: The funding.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: The only problem
is --
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Walt, is there a ceiling
on the amount --
MR. DABNEY: It's $2 million.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: -- accepted for transfer?
MR. DABNEY: $2 million a year is what we're
authorized -- the only problem with what the Commissioner
is saying is that the money can only be transferred to a
subdivision of the state. If it's a private, nonprofit
situation and they're willing to take it, we cannot fix
it up for them using for state money.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: When do you apply for this
money, Walt?
MR. DABNEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: What's the cutoff date
applying for this money?
MR. DABNEY: There is none.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: There is none. Okay.
MR. DABNEY: Not until the legislature -- now,
if they took it, then they could come to Tim for a local
park grant, possibly, if the city or county would support
that, and get a grant, once they owned the site that they
took.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: Now, I think everybody
recognizes that these are sensitive issues. People care
deeply about their park and all that. And we certainly
understand that. But I also think that it's important
that you all are doing your job looking at these
situations, and trying to work things out with the local
folks to do something that works for them, that works for
us.
And that people understand that -- I think I
can speak for the Commission in saying that we do not
view, necessarily, quantity as the way to fulfill our
mission. It may be in some cases. It may be not in
others.
But that we need to look at each of these
situations individually and make sure that what we're
trying to accomplish here fits within the larger vision
that we have for what you all are charged with doing.
And I think the Kerrville-Schreiner situation here is a
perfect example of where it's working out.
COMMISSIONER AVILA: Yes, ma'am.
MR. COOK: I just -- I say thanks to Walt and
his staff for working so closely with the city and the
folks in the community. There is a lot of personal -- as
the Chairman just said, there's a lot of personal
attachment to many of these parks. Some of the families
were involved in putting these parks together.
And this has been done very out in the open --
meetings with the local folks, time and time again -- to
be sure that this is something that they support, and
that they will continue to provide those services.
MR. DABNEY: I think the city will be here
tomorrow to talk to you as well.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Well, I would concur that
we've made some real good progress in this area. I know
that the purpose of my asking the question about what we
were doing proactively was to see if this area, if you
felt like there's need for follow-up. And I think you've
answered that -- that you're satisfied that the likely
candidates have been taken care of, and anything now
would have to come as an initiative from the local
entity.
MR. DABNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is that correct? Is that
right?
MR. DABNEY: I think that's true. And the
common questions back to us are, Are you going to shut it
down? And when the answer is no, then the response is,
Why would we take it over?
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Why would we want it?
Very good. Well, thank you, very good -- good job. This
item is a good item. Is there any further discussion on
it today?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: There being no questions
or discussion further, without objection, please say,
aye, to go before the commission meeting for public
comment and action.
Was there any other business to come before the
committee, Madame Chairman?
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: I think there is. Is this
the appropriate time to ask Scott Boruff to step up here
and make an announcement?
MR. BORUFF: Madame Chairman, Commissioners, my
name is Scott Boruff, Deputy Executive Director of
Operations. And it is with great pleasure, I would like
to announce that we've selected our new Director of the
Infrastructure Division. And it's Mr. Steve Whiston.
(Applause.)
MR. BORUFF: He will actually take over sooner
than immediately, since he's been in this role for the
last six months.
CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: Steve, I'm still waiting
for those stain colors. Congratulations!
MR. WHISTON: Thank you. I'm looking forward
to it.
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is there any other
business before the Finance Committee?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ANGELO: If not, Madame Chairman,
the committee is adjourned.
(Whereupon, this Finance Committee meeting was
concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Finance Committee
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: January 22, 2003
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages,
numbers 1 through , inclusive, are the true, accurate,
and complete transcript prepared from the verbal
recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum
before the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
02/12/03
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731